The Surgical Algorithm for the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To establish a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures based on the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Spine Sacral Injury Classification System. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification has been validated across an international audience of surgeons, a consensus on a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures using the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (Sacral AOSIS) has yet to be developed. METHODS: A survey was sent to general orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic spine surgeons, and neurosurgeons across the five AO spine regions of the world. Descriptions of controversial sacral injuries based on different fracture subtypes were given, and surgeons were asked whether the patient should undergo operative or nonoperative management. The results of the survey were used to create a surgical algorithm based on each subtype's sacral AOSIS. RESULTS: An international agreement of 70% was decided on by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts to indicate a recommendation of initial operative intervention. Using this, sacral fracture subtypes of AOSIS 5 or greater were considered operative, while those with AOSIS 4 or less were generally nonoperative. For subtypes with an AOSIS of 3 or 4, if the sacral fracture was associated with an anterior pelvic ring injury (M3 case-specific modifier), intervention should be left to the surgeons' discretion. CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System offers a validated hierarchical system to approach sacral injuries. Through multispecialty and global surgeon input, a surgical algorithm was developed to determine appropriate operative indications for sacral trauma. Further validation is required, but this algorithm provides surgeons across the world with the basis for discussion and the development of standards of care and treatment.

Cervical Collar-Associated Pressure Injury in Pediatric Trauma Patients: A Western Pediatric Surgery Research Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated pressure injuries (HAPI) are known to be associated with medical devices and are preventable. Cervical spine immobilization is commonly utilized in injured children prior to clinical clearance or for treatment of an unstable cervical spinal injury. The frequency of HAPI has been quantified in adults with cervical spine immobilization but has not been well-described in children. The aim of this study was to describe characteristics of children who developed HAPI associated with cervical immobilization. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of children (0-18 years) who developed a stage two or greater cervical HAPI. This cohort was drawn from an overall sample of 49,218 registry patients treated over a five-year period (2017-2021) at ten pediatric trauma centers. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and cervical immobilization were tabulated to describe the population. RESULTS: The cohort included 32 children with stage two or greater cervical HAPI. The median age was 5 years (IQR 2-13) and 78% (n = 25) were admitted to the intensive care unit. The median (IQR) time to diagnosis of HAPI was 11 (7-21) days post-injury. The majority of cervical HAPI (78%, 25/32) occurred in children requiring immobilization for cervical injuries, with only four children developing HAPI after wearing a prophylactic cervical collar in the absence of a cervical spine injury. CONCLUSION: Advanced-stage HAPI associated with cervical collar use in pediatric trauma patients is rare and usually occurs in patients with cervical spine injuries requiring immobilization for treatment. More expedient cervical spine clearance with MRI is unlikely to substantially reduce cervical HAPI in injured children. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III (Epidemiologic and Prognostic).

Trends in prehospital cervical collar utilization in trauma patients: Closer, but not there yet.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the change in cervical spine (C-spine) immobilization frequency in trauma patients over time. We hypothesize that the frequency of unnecessary C-spine immobilization has decreased. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients transported to our American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, was performed. Emergency medical services documentation was manually reviewed to record prehospital physiology and the application of a prehospital cervical collar (c-collar). C-spine injuries were defined as cervical vertebral fractures and/or spinal cord injuries. Univariate and year-by-year trend analyses were used to assess changes in C-spine injury and immobilization frequency. RESULTS: Among 2906 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 12% sustained C-spine injuries, while 88% did not. Patients with C-spine injuries were more likely to experience blunt trauma (95% vs. 68%, p < 0.001), were older (46 years vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), and had higher Injury Severity Scores (31 vs. 18, p < 0.001). They also exhibited lower initial systolic blood pressures (108 mm Hg vs. 119 mm Hg, p < 0.001), lower heart rates (92 beats/min vs. 97 beats/min, p < 0.05), and lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (9 vs. 11, p < 0.001). In blunt trauma, c-collars were applied to 83% of patients with C-spine injuries and 75% without; for penetrating trauma, c-collars were applied to 50% of patients with C-spine injuries and only 8% without. Among penetrating trauma patients with C-spine injury, all patients either arrived quadriplegic or did not require emergent neurosurgical intervention. The proportion of patients receiving a c-collar decreased in both blunt and penetrating traumas from 2014 to 2021 (blunt-82% in 2014 to 68% in 2021; penetrating-24% in 2014 to 6% in 2021). CONCLUSIONS: Unnecessary C-spine stabilization has decreased from 2014 to 2021. However, c-collars are still being applied to patients who do not need them, both in blunt and in penetrating trauma cases, while not being applied to patients who would benefit from them.

Pediatric trauma population spine immobilization during resuscitation: A call for improved guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: This review aims to evaluate current practices regarding spine immobilization in pediatric trauma patients to evaluate their efficacy, reliability, and impact on clinical outcomes to guide future research and improved evidence-based practice guidelines. METHODS: PubMed, ProQuest, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were queried for studies pertaining to spinal immobilization practices in pediatric trauma patients. Articles were separated into studies that explored both the efficacy and clinical outcomes of spine immobilization. Outcomes evaluated included frequency of spinal imaging, self-reported pain level, emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS), and ED disposition. RESULTS: Six articles were included, with two studies examining clinical outcomes and 4 studies evaluating the efficacy and reliability of immobilization techniques. Immobilized children were significantly more likely to undergo cervical spine imaging (OR 8.2, p < 0.001), be admitted to the floor (OR 4.0, p < 0.001), be taken to the ICU or OR (OR 5.3, p < 0.05) and reported a higher median pain score. Older children were significantly more likely to be immobilized. No immobilization techniques consistently achieved neutral positioning, and patients most often presented in a flexed position. Lapses in immobilization occurred in 71.4% of patients. CONCLUSION: Immobilized pediatric patients underwent more cervical radiographs, and had higher hospital and ICU admission rates, and higher mean pain scores than those without immobilization. Immobilization was inconsistent across age groups and often resulted in lapses and improper alignment. Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate immobilization techniques for pediatric patients and when to use them.

Pediatric Spinal Trauma at a Single Level 1 Trauma Center: Review of 62 Cases.

Background: Traumatic spinal injuries in children are uncommon and result in different patterns of injuries due to the anatomical characteristics of children's spines. However, there are only a few epidemiological studies of traumatic spinal injury in children. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of traumatic spinal injury in children. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the cases of pediatric patients (age < 18 years) with traumatic spinal injury who were treated at a level 1 trauma center between January 2017 and December 2021. We divided them into three groups according to age and analyzed demographics, injury mechanism, level of injury, and injury pattern. Results: A total of 62 patients (255 fractures) were included, and the mean age was 13.8 ± 3.2 years. There were 5 patients (22 fractures) in group I (0-9 years), 24 patients (82 fractures) in group II (10-14 years), and 33 patients (151 fractures) in group III (15-17 years). Both the Injury Severity Score and the Revised Trauma Score were highest in group I, but there was no statistical difference between the age groups. Fall from height was the most common injury mechanism, of which 63% were suicide attempts. The level of spinal injury was different in each age group, T10-L2 injury being the most common. In all age groups, the number of multilevel continuous injury was larger than that of single-level injury or multilevel noncontinuous injury. Surgical intervention was required in 33.9%, and mortality was 3.2%. Conclusions: In our study, fall from height was the most common mechanism of injury, and there were many suicide attempts associated with mental health issues. Thoracolumbar junction injuries were predominant, and the rate of multilevel contiguous injuries was high. The support and interest of the society and families for adolescent children seem crucial in preventing spinal trauma, and image testing of the entire spine is essential when evaluating pediatric spinal injuries.

Estrategias de tratamiento en la metástasis vertebral. Necesidad de comités multidisciplinarios desde la perspectiva del cirujano. Narración de la literatura / Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literatura

Las mejoras en el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer han mejorado la supervivencia. Secundariamente también aumenta el número de estos pacientes que presentan una metástasis vertebral y el número con alguna morbilidad en relación con estas metástasis. Fractura vertebral, compresión radicular o lesión medular causan un deterioro de su calidad de vida. El objetivo en el tratamiento de las mismas ha de ser el control del dolor, mantenimiento función neurológica y de la estabilidad vertebral, teniendo presente que en muchos casos será un tratamiento paliativo.El tratamiento de estas complicaciones presenta un enfoque multidisciplinario, radiólogos, radiólogos intervencionistas, oncólogos y radioterapeutas, cirujanos de raquis, pero también Unidad de Rehabilitación o Unidad de Dolor. Recientes trabajos muestran que un enfoque multidisciplinario de estos pacientes puede mejorar calidad de vida e incluso pronóstico.En el presente trabajo se realiza una revisión y lectura de la bibliografía sobre el manejo multidisciplinario de estos pacientes.(AU)

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increases. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life.The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment.The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis.In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.(AU)

[Translated article] Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literature / Estrategias de tratamiento en la metástasis vertebral. Necesidad de comités multidisciplinarios desde la perspectiva del cirujano. Narración de la literatura

Las mejoras en el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer han mejorado la supervivencia. Secundariamente también aumenta el número de estos pacientes que presentan una metástasis vertebral y el número con alguna morbilidad en relación con estas metástasis. Fractura vertebral, compresión radicular o lesión medular causan un deterioro de su calidad de vida. El objetivo en el tratamiento de las mismas ha de ser el control del dolor, mantenimiento función neurológica y de la estabilidad vertebral, teniendo presente que en muchos casos será un tratamiento paliativo.El tratamiento de estas complicaciones presenta un enfoque multidisciplinario, radiólogos, radiólogos intervencionistas, oncólogos y radioterapeutas, cirujanos de raquis, pero también Unidad de Rehabilitación o Unidad de Dolor. Recientes trabajos muestran que un enfoque multidisciplinario de estos pacientes puede mejorar calidad de vida e incluso pronóstico.En el presente trabajo se realiza una revisión y lectura de la bibliografía sobre el manejo multidisciplinario de estos pacientes.(AU)

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increases. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life.The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment.The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis.In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.(AU)

A Ten-Year Retrospective Cohort Study on Neck Collar Immobilization in Trauma Patients with Head and Neck Injuries.

Background and Objectives: In the context of prehospital care, spinal immobilization is commonly employed to maintain cervical stability in head and neck injury patients. However, its use in cases of unclear consciousness or major trauma patients is often precautionary, pending the exclusion of unstable spinal injuries through appropriate diagnostic imaging. The impact of prehospital C-spinal immobilization in these specific patient populations remains uncertain. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital from January 2009 to May 2019, focusing on trauma patients suspected of head and neck injuries. The primary outcome assessed was in-hospital mortality. We employed multivariable logistic regression to investigate the relationship between prehospital C-spine immobilization and outcomes, while adjusting for various factors such as age, gender, type of traumatic brain injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and activation of trauma team. Results: Our analysis encompassed 2733 patients. Among these, patients in the unclear consciousness group (GCS ≤ 8) who underwent C-spine immobilization exhibited a higher mortality rate than those without immobilization. However, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among patients with alert consciousness (GCS > 8). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that advanced age (age ≥ 65), unclear consciousness (GCS ≤ 8), major traumatic injuries (ISS ≥ 16 and RTS ≤ 7), and the use of neck collars for immobilization (adjusted OR: 1.850, 95% CI: 1.240-2.760, p = 0.003) were significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality. Subgroup analysis indicated that C-spine immobilization was significantly linked to an elevated risk of mortality in older adults (age ≥ 65), patients with unclear consciousness (GCS ≤ 8), those with major traumatic injuries (ISS ≥ 16 and RTS ≤ 7), and individuals in shock (shock index > 1). Conclusions: While our findings do not advocate for the complete abandonment of neck collars in all suspected head and neck injury patients, our study suggests that prehospital cervical and spinal immobilization should be applied more selectively in certain head and neck injury populations. This approach is particularly relevant for older individuals (age ≥ 65), those with unclear consciousness (GCS ≤ 8), individuals experiencing major traumatic injuries (ISS ≥ 16 or RTS ≤ 7), and patients in a state of shock (shock index ≥ 1). Our study employs a retrospective cohort design, which may introduce selection bias. Therefore, in the future, there is a need for confirmation of our results through a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) arises, as this design is considered ideal for addressing this issue.

Traumatic spinal injury-related hospitalizations in the United States, 2016-2019: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal injury (TSI) is associated with significant fatality and social burden; however, the epidemiology and treatment of patients with TSI in the US remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An adult population was selected from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2019. TSI incidence was calculated and TSI-related hospitalizations were divided into operative and nonoperative groups according to the treatments received. TSIs were classified as fracture, dislocation, internal organ injury, nerve root injury, or sprain injuries based on their nature. The annual percentage change (APC) was calculated to identify trends. In-hospital deaths were utilized to evaluate the prognosis of different TSIs. RESULTS: Overall, 95 047 adult patients were hospitalized with TSI in the US from 2016 to 2019, with an incidence rate of 48.4 per 100 000 persons in 2019 (95% CI: 46.2-50.6). The total incidence increased with an APC of 1.5% (95% CI: 0.1-3%) from 2016 to 2019. Operative TSI treatment was more common than nonoperative (32.8 vs. 3.8; 95% CI: 32.3-33.2 vs. 3.6-4%). The number of operations increased from 37 555 (95% CI: 34 674-40 436) to 40 460 (95% CI: 37 372-43 548); however, the operative rate only increased for internal organ injury (i.e. spinal cord injury [SCI])-related hospitalizations (APC, 3.6%; 95% CI: 2.8-4.4%). In-hospital mortality was highest among SCI-related hospitalizations, recorded at 3.9% (95% CI: 2.9-5%) and 28% (95% CI: 17.9-38.2%) in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incidence of TSI in US adults increased from 2016 to 2019. The number of operations increased; however, the proportion of operations performed on TSI-related hospitalizations did not significantly change. In 2019, SCI was the highest associated mortality TSI, regardless of operative or nonoperative treatment.

The changing landscape of spinal injuries: A narrative review.

In the past, spinal trauma was frequent in high- and middle-income regions of the world with high rates of automobility and was considered a "young men's disease." However, over the last 2 decades, both of these factors have changed dramatically. This has had important implications for our methods of diagnosis, treatment, and the organization of care.

Validation of the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System Treatment Algorithm: Should it be used to Guide Fracture Management?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To determine how historical management of thoracolumbar spine injuries compares to the recently proposed AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System treatment algorithm. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Classifications of the thoracolumbar spine are not uncommon. The frequent advent of new classifications is typically due to previous classifications being primarily descriptive or unreliable. Thus, AO Spine created a classification with an associated treatment algorithm to guide injury classification and management. METHODS: Thoracolumbar spine injuries were retrospectively identified from a prospectively collected spine trauma database at a single, urban, academic medical center during the years 2006 to 2021. Each injury was classified and assigned points based on the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System injury severity score. Patients were grouped into scores of 3 or less (preferred initial conservative treatment) and greater than 6 (preferred initial surgical intervention). Either operative or non-operative treatment was considered appropriate for injury severity scores of 4 or 5. RESULTS: A total of 815 patients (TL AOSIS 0-3: 486, TL AOSIS 4-5: 150, TL AOSIS 6+: 179) met inclusion status. Injury severity scores of 0-3 were more likely to undergo non-operative management compared to scores of 4-5 or 6+ (99.0% vs. 74.7% vs. 13.4%, P <0.001). Thus, guideline congruent treatment was 99.0%, 100%, and 86.6%, respectively ( P <0.001). Most injuries determined to be a 4 or 5 were treated non-operatively (74.7%). Based on the treatment algorithm, 97.5% of patients who received operative treatment and 96.1% who received non-operative treatment were managed in accordance with the algorithm. Of the 29 patients who did not receive algorithm congruent treatment, 5 (17.2%) were treated surgically. CONCLUSIONS: A retrospective review of thoracolumbar spine injuries at our urban academic medical center identified that patients are historically treated in accordance with the proposed AO Spine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System treatment algorithm.

Acute and Emergent Spinal Injury Assessment and Treatment.

Sports participation is a leading cause of catastrophic cervical spine injury (CSI) in the United States. Appropriate prehospital care for athletes with suspected CSIs should be available at all levels of sport. Planning the process of transport for home venues before the start of the season and ensuring that a medical time out occurs at home and away games can reduce complications of transport decisions on the field of play and expedite transport of the spine-injured athlete.

SOFTLY: Comparison of outcomes of rigid versus soft collar during emergency department investigation for potential cervical spine injury in low-risk blunt trauma patients - A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt trauma patients with potential cervical spine injury are traditionally immobilised in rigid collars. Recently, this has been challenged. The present study's objective was comparison of the rate of patient-oriented adverse events in stable, alert, low-risk patients with potential cervical spine injuries immobilised in rigid versus soft collars. METHODS: Unblinded, prospective quasi-randomised clinical trial of neurologically intact, adult, blunt trauma patients assessed as having potential cervical spine injury. Patients were randomised to collar type. All other aspects of care were unchanged. Primary outcome was patient-reported discomfort related to neck immobilisation by collar type. Secondary outcomes included adverse neurological events, agitation and clinically important cervical spine injuries (clinical trial registration number: ACTRN12621000286842). RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were enrolled: 59 patients allocated to a rigid collar and 78 to a soft collar. Most injuries were from a fall <1 m (54%) or a motor vehicle crash (21.9%). Median neck pain score of collar immobilisation was lower in the soft collar group (3.0 [interquartile range 0-6.1] vs 6.0 [interquartile range 3-8.8], P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with clinician-identified agitation was lower in the soft collar group (5% vs 17%, P = 0.04). There were four clinically important cervical spine injuries (two in each group). All were treated conservatively. There were no adverse neurological events. CONCLUSIONS: Use of soft rather than rigid collar immobilisation for low-risk blunt trauma patients with potential cervical spine injury is significantly less painful for patients and results in less agitation. A larger study is needed to determine the safety of this approach or whether collars are required at all.

Patterns of change in prehospital spinal motion restriction: A retrospective database review.

BACKGROUND: Acute management of trauma patients with potential spine injuries has evolved from uniform spinal immobilization (SI) to spinal motion restriction (SMR). Little research exists describing how these changes have been implemented. This study aims to describe and analyze the practice of SMR in one emergency medical services (EMS) agency over the time frame of SMR adoption. METHODS: This was a retrospective database review of electronic patient care reports from 2009 to 2020. The effects of key practice changes (revised documentation and a collar-only treatment option) were analyzed in an interrupted time series using the rate of SI/SMR as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient age, sex, acuity, mechanism of injury, treatment provided, cervical collar size, and positioning. These were assessed for changes from year to year by Poisson regression. Associations between patient and treatment characteristics were investigated with binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 25,747 instances of SI/SMR included. Among all patients, the median age was 40 (interquartile range 24-56), 58% (14,970) were male, and 20% (5062) were high-acuity. The rate of SI/SMR declined from 31.2 to 12.7 treatments per 100 trauma calls per month. The proportion of high-acuity patients increased by 9.6% per year on average (95% CI 8.7%-10.0%). When first available, collar-only treatment was provided to 47% of patients, rising by 6.3% per year (95% CI 3.2%-9.5%) to 60% in 2020. Collar-only treatment (compared to board-and-collar) was more likely to be applied to low-acuity patients (as compared to high): odds ratio 3.01 (95% CI 2.64-3.43). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows decreasing SI/SMR treatment and changing patient and practice characteristics. These patterns of care cannot be attributed solely to formal protocol changes. Similar patterns and their possible explanations should be investigated elsewhere.

Pediatric cervical spine injuries-results of the German multicenter CHILDSPINE study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide epidemiological data of pediatric patients suffering from cervical spinal trauma in Germany, in order to integrate these data in future decision-making processes concerning diagnosis and therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study includes all patients up to 16 years suffering from cervical spine injuries who were treated in six German spine centers between 01/2010 and 12/2016. The clinical databases were screened for specific trauma mechanism, level of injury as well as accompanying injuries. Diagnostic imaging and the chosen therapy were analyzed. Patients were divided into three age groups for further evaluation: age group I (0-6 years), age group II (7-9 years), age group III (10-16 years). RESULTS: A total of 214 children with 265 cervical spine injuries were included during the mentioned period. The mean age at the time of injury was 11.9 (± 3.9) years. In age group I, 24 (11.2%) patients were included, age group II consisted of 22 patients (10.3%), and 168 patients belonged to age group III (78.5%). Girls and boys were equally affected. In all age groups, falls and traffic accidents were the most common causes of cervical spine injuries. A total of 180 patients (84.1%) were treated conservatively, while 34 (15.9%) children underwent surgery. Distorsion/whiplash injury was the most common entity (n = 165; 68.2%). Children aged 0-9 years had significantly (p < 0.001) more frequent injuries of the upper cervical spine (C0-C2) compared to older age groups. Patients of age group III were more likely to suffer from injuries in subaxial localizations. Neurological deficits were rarely seen in all age groups. Head injuries did represent the most common accompanying injuries (39.8%, n = 92). CONCLUSIONS: The upper cervical spine was more frequently affected in young children. Older children more often suffered from subaxial pathologies. The majority of cervical spinal column injuries were treated conservatively. Nevertheless, 15% of the hospitalized children had to be treated surgically.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to cervical spine injury by uncertain trauma: A study of two cases.

Cervical spinal cord injury is a well-known cause of cardiac arrest in trauma victims. Unless trauma is definitively suspected, emergency medical services teams perform resuscitation in the pre-hospital stage without cervical spine immobilization. During advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS), intubation with cervical spinal immobilization causes difficulty in accessing the airway, thus, immobilization tends to not be performed, unless the patient is a clear case of trauma. We report two patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) due to cervical fractures that have occurred without clear trauma. In these cases, pre-existing cervical spine lesions was additional informed and identification of the cervical spine fractures was delayed. Emergency medical physicians tend to neglect cervical spine injury when the likelihood of trauma is unclear in a patient presenting with OHCA. These cases urge physicians to consider the possibility of cervical spinal injuries, even in cases of minor trauma. If there is a possibility of cervical spinal injury, imaging should not be delayed and should be followed by appropriate treatment.

Refining the role of cervical spine immobilization and stabilization in pediatric non-accidental trauma, a retrospective series of 1008 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Prompt detection of traumatic cervical spine injury is important as delayed or missed diagnosis can have disastrous consequences. Given the understood mechanism of non-accidental trauma (NAT), it is reasonable to suspect that cervical spine injury can occur. Current management of young children being evaluated for NAT includes placement of a rigid collar until clinical clearance or an MRI can be obtained. Currently, there exists a lack of robust data to guide cervical bracing. Anecdotally, our group has not observed a single patient with a diagnosis of NAT who required operative stabilization for cervical spine instability. This study will be the largest series to date and aims to systematically investigate this observation to determine the likelihood that children with a diagnosis of NAT harbor cervical spine instability related to their injuries. METHODS: Patient data from the Children's Hospital Colorado Trauma Registry diagnosed with non-burn-only NAT were reviewed retrospectively. Children less than 4 years of age pulled from the registry from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2021, were included. Demographic, admission/discharge, imaging, and clinic management data were collected for each patient and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1008 patients included in the cohort. The age at presentation ranged from 5 days to 4 years (mean 10.4 months). No patient had X-ray or CT findings concerning for cervical instability. Three patients had MRI findings concerning for cervical instability. Two of these underwent external bracing, and the third died from unrelated injuries during their hospitalization. Only four patients were discharged in a cervical collar, and all were ultimately cleared from bracing. No patient underwent a spinal stabilization procedure. CONCLUSIONS: While the mechanism of injury in many NAT cases would seem to make significant cervical spine injury possible, this single-center retrospective review of a large experience indicates that such injury is exceedingly rare. Further study is merited to understand the underlying pathophysiology. However, it is reasonable to consider cervical collar clearance in the setting of normal radiographs and a reassuring neurological exam. Furthermore, if concerns exist regarding cervical spine instability on MRI, an initial trial of conservative management is warranted.

Comparison of Different Tidal Volumes for Ventilation in Patients with an Acute Traumatic Cervical Spine Injury.

Background: There is scant literature comparing high tidal volume ventilation (HTV) over low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation in acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI). Objective: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled parallel-group, single-blinded study was to compare the effect of two different tidal volumes (12-15 mL/kg and 6-8 mL/kg) in CSCI on days to achieve ventilator-free breathing (VFB), PaO2/FIO2 ratio, the incidence of complications, requirement of vasopressor drugs, total duration of hospital stay, and mortality. Materials and Methods: We enrolled patients with acute high traumatic CSCI admitted to the neurotrauma intensive care unit within 24 h of injury, requiring mechanical ventilation. Participants were randomized to receive either HTV, 12-15 mL/kg (group H) or LTV, 6-8 mL/kg (group L) tidal volume ventilation. Results and Conclusions: A total of 56 patients, 28 in each group were analyzed. Patient demographics and injury severity were comparable between the groups. VFB was achieved in 23 and 19 patients in groups H and L, respectively. The median number of days required to achieve VFB was 3 (2, 56) and 8 (2, 50) days, P = 0.33; PaO2: FIO2 ratio was 364.0 ± 64 and 321.0 ± 67.0, P = 0.01; the incidence of atelectasis was 25% and 46%, P = 0.16, respectively, in group H and group L. The hemodynamic parameters and the vasopressor requirement were comparable in both groups. There was no barotrauma. The duration of hospital stay (P = 0.2) and mortality (P = 0.2) was comparable in both groups. There was no significant difference in days to achieve ventilator-free breathing with HTV (12-15 mL/kg) ventilation compared to LTV (6-8 mL/kg) ventilation in acute CSCI. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio was higher with the use of 12-15 mL/kg. No difference in mortality and duration of hospital stay was seen in either group.